Tag Archives: Ann Gaylia O’Barr

In a Time of Political Change

My Oxford English Dictionary defines hubris as “excessive pride or self-confidence.”
Pride in one’s nationhood is patriotic; excess pride can lead to harm for that nation as well as others. Nations as well as individuals can be tempted by hubris. Even as we begin new political terms for the presidency and members of Congress, we might consider the history of other countries when they reached new heights of power.

In the waning days of the 19th century, Britain indeed stood at the height of world power, her empire one on which the sun never set. In a few decades, however, the world would suffer two world wars as well as the rise of new political movements, bringing great changes to former world powers. Kipling’s poem would caution any world power, including the United States, to consider responsible uses of that power while they are able to do so.

Recessional

By Rudyard Kipling
1897

God of our fathers, known of old,
Lord of our far-flung battle-line,
Beneath whose awful Hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies;
The Captains and the Kings depart:
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
Or lesser breeds without the Law—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard,
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding, calls not Thee to guard,
For frantic boast and foolish word—
Thy mercy on Thy People, Lord!

Recent Batting Average for the Church in America

I find myself with sympathy for any new American member to our current group of Christian believers. One can only say that it surely is the attraction of Jesus that overcomes our sometimes less than loving presentation of the good news he brought and lived for us.

For a sober view of the Christian church in the United States in the last few years, listen to The New York Times columnist David Brooks:

“We religious people talk about virtue so much you’d think we’d behave better than nonreligious people. But that’s not been my experience. Over the past decade, especially in the American church, I’ve seen religious people behaving more dishonestly, and in some ways being more tolerant of sexual abuse. I sometimes joke that entering the church in 2013 was like investing in the stock market in 1929. My timing could have been better.” (David Brooks, “The Shock of Faith: It’s Nothing Like I thought It Would Be,” The New York Times, December 19, 2004.)

Of course, our failings are not new. People calling themselves Christians have at times fought wars against each other, cast each other out of the church, and even tortured and burned fellow Christians at the stake because their theology was different from that of other Christians with political power.

Perhaps it’s helpful to remember, however, that plenty of Christians have indeed followed the Jesus way and ministered to the hungry, thirsty, lonely, imprisoned, unclothed, and those in need of good news. (Matthew 25)

I don’t think any civilization has, despite failings of Christians, come as far as nations when the gospel has been accepted by enough people practicing its teachings. We have what I would call an influential faith. I don’t think there is any such thing as a “Christian” nation. Worshiping political power is setting up a god other than Jesus. We can, however, manage to influence in ways that overcome the normal self-seeking ways of most earthly politics.

It is, after all, a call to earthly service, not to earthly power.

So, yes, there’s always room for one more sinner saved by grace.

What Is It About Money?

Obviously, we all need money to survive in the world we live in—money to pay the rent/mortgage, buy groceries and clothes, compensate our computer services provider, perhaps contribute to charity, and so on.

Some manage well on what their salaries/pensions/inheritance/savings allow them. Many others get by. Some suffer hardship, sometimes of circumstances not of their own making, like illness or physical loss. Others make unwise lifestyle choices that land them in poverty.

Although a few may live in religious or other communities where all is shared, most of us must take care of financial matters for ourselves and family members.

Almost all adults in the western world must deal with these matters, but some with more than adequate means seem to obsess with getting more. Or to using more than adequate means to gain power over the political process in order to encourage laws that favor their amassing even more wealth.

What is it about money that is so enticing to those who already have plenty of it?

Some very wealthy individuals do indeed share their wealth to fund programs for the less well-off. Some give huge amounts and others give less but nevertheless, the amount of charitable contributions is certainly meaningful. Those funds have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, provided rent assistance and low income housing, and set up college scholarships, among other worthy causes.

Wealth, it seems is not the culprit, but rather our attachment or lack of attachment to it.
Interesting, of course, because as Jesus pointed out, all of us leave it behind at death.
Regardless of which, if any, religious community you adhere to, you must leave any wealth behind. Beyond that is where faith takes us.

Fire-Bombed Voting Box

A few weeks ago, my husband and I cast votes in the November 5, 2024 elections. We had received our ballots by mail, discussed the candidates, then filled out our ballots. We walked a few blocks to the secured metal voting box across from our small town city hall and deposited them there.

The next day I read about an attempt to set fire to voting booths in another part of the state. One fire destroyed only three ballots; the other was more serious. The call went out for anyone using those boxes to see if they might need to replace a destroyed ballot. In addition, more boxes were being equipped with safety measures to make it difficult to set them on fire.

A camera had recorded the probable car driven by the vote destroyer.

I wondered: why would someone want to threaten the right to vote? To make our constitutional privilege more difficult?

Some might call for a return of the old-fashioned voting booth. That’s a valid position. Apparently, however, more people vote when done by a simple trip to a voting box, and such voting may be easier for those with busy schedules.

Regardless, what is so threatening about citizens casting ballots for their leaders?

To Make a Better Life

Sometime back before the American Revolution, my ancestors, probably including those of both English and Irish nationalities, immigrated to what would become the United States.

They were part of the great migration of European peoples to the Americas. Native Americans would suffer greatly, pushed further and further into less fertile areas, forced to give up sovereignty and lands.

Slaves and their descendants suffered also, shackled by prejudice that denied them the American dream.

For people like my ancestors, however, the new lands allowed them to flourish as they probably never would have in Europe. Like other immigrant families, some of my ancestors did better than others. A few became well-off, others became small farmers, others eventually landed in urban areas, becoming workers and small business owners, surviving both depression and times of war.

My own parents kept their home during the Great Depression of the thirties, saved by one of President Franklin Roosevelt’s new deal programs. Later, they managed to send my brother and me to college. We both enjoyed middle class American lives.

Not surprisingly, I have sympathy for immigrants. I think one of the greatest gifts the country has been granted is renewal brought about by managed immigration. Indeed, the castoffs of Nazi Germany, given sanctuary in the United States, helped power the defeat of that same regime.

Some of my beliefs, I freely admit, come from my Christian faith, a belief that those who are blessed are obligated to bless others. We the blessed, are called to share those blessings.

This country has allowed some to amass great wealth. I don’t believe that being rich is in itself a sin. I do believe it is a great responsibility. The responsibility is to choose between the path of the rich man in Jesus’ parable who ignored the poor seeking crumbs from his table, or that of the one known as the Good Samaritan, who chose to help the needy one he happened to meet.

But If Not

In one of the battles of World War II, the commander of a besieged British force radioed to his headquarters: “but if not.”

These words are found in the Christian Old Testament, in the third chapter of the book of Daniel. Three young Jewish men taken captive by the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, refused to bow down to a statue of Nebuchadnezzar, set up for the people to worship. When Nebuchadnezzar heard of it, he ordered the men to be burned alive in a fiery furnace.

The men refused. They answered the king: “. . . our God . . . is able to deliver us . . . But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou has set up.”

According to the Biblical passage, the men were miraculously rescued. However, the phrase “but if not” became a symbol for the British people in their great struggle with Hitler’s Nazism. They would stand against the might of his armies, even if Britain seemed close to being vanquished as a nation.

The origin of those words would not be recognized by many English speaking people today. We have lost much of our shared heritage.

Nevertheless, the words remain a symbol for those who struggle against the greed and selfishness and perverted power of this age, in what sometimes seems a losing struggle.

Bible Reading in Public Schools

I grew up a long time ago in Nashville, Tennessee. In my public schools in those days, a teacher often began the day with a reading from the Bible.

It was about as exciting as watching paint dry. I associated it with tasks like learning the multiplication tables.

Where Christ’s teachings did become alive was in many of my church child and youth groups. Teachers there loved both God and youth and believed in us. Some of them got creative with flannel board presentations or games. We shared in Sunday night gatherings, along with food, always a popular draw. (Food also appeared to be a popular draw with some of Jesus’ teachings. He appeared to enjoy feasts and celebrations.)

I think one practice to make Christianity disappear or at least lose its importance in society is to make its teachings compulsory–in the public schools and elsewhere.

Never associate it with fun or games or freedom to ask questions or to share hurts and vulnerabilities in voluntary gatherings. Don’t let it grow the way it did in early Christianity, from person to person, from what was not compulsory but from what was lived.

Make it appear as though the United States of America is a nation of one particular religion, instead of a nation of fallible human beings, where no religion is favored above another, where all are free to seek the truth as they wish. Where the founders understood the awful cost of religious wars in the old world.

Make sure people of other faiths feel that their faith is discriminated against—like the way I used to feel in other countries where another faith was favored. If we can discriminate, so can other nations.

 

Reading the Comics

Every Sunday morning a half hour or so before my husband and I leave for church, I wander down our walkway to the newspaper box next to the street. I grab the paper and begin scanning the headlines on the way back to the house. Later in the afternoon after church, I enjoy a leisurely newspaper read, including, of course, the comic strips.

During the week, I read a couple of newspapers on the web. I prefer traditional newspapers because I trust them more. It’s easier to sue newspapers for libel than some incognito writer of a wild story on the internet.

No doubt my majoring in print journalism many years ago in college contributes to my favoritism for traditional newspapers. One of two print newspapers in my city at the time actually hired me as a summer reporter (the Nashville Banner.) I began on the “obit” circuit: calling funeral homes to check on which Nashvillians had died during the week, whose passing should be noted in print. After a while, I graduated to interviewing citizens for human interest stories. My final summer on the paper, the editor let me cover a religious convention convening in the city.

Alas, I never became the journalist I had intended. However, I credit my newspaper experience with the regard for the truth pushed by that rough city editor under whom I worked.

What will the internet do for truthful reporting? I don’t know. However, we adjusted (sometimes after harming innocent groups, it will be admitted) to the rise of newspapers. They performed valuable service to the rough democracies rising in the western world. Mobs and political machines learned to fear the written word.

The trick today is sorting the wheat from the chaff, finding reputable news sources. Print newspapers are a good place to start.

 

Majority Rules or Does It?

Can the minority actually allow the majority to rule? Even in divisive issues like abortion, racism, and military action?

Our governing document, the U.S. Constitution, tends toward realism. The first words are: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union . . .”

The first union, under the Articles of Confederation, after the war for independence from Britain, was a failure. That union proved unworkable, more a collection of individual nation states failing to act as one nation.

This new attempt to create a “more perfect” union implied the impossibility of an actual perfect union. We are always striving for it.

Almost any issue can cause conflict. Most conflicts involve small numbers of people, however. Bigger issues often are ones of conscience.

On these bigger issues, some will strongly disagree with whatever action is taken. To use violence in response, however, only invites the other side toward actions of violence. Almost always, the conflict deepens, leading to harm of innocent people.

Perhaps the first reaction to what one considers an unjust law is patience and the realization that no one of us is perfect.

One avenue in such a time is speaking out. One of our most precious freedoms is freedom of speech. We use it to encourage what we believe are better laws and solutions, but in humility, knowing that our human reasoning is subject to error.

Some may consider civil disobedience—an act of simply not obeying the law, but not violently or in ways that would harm others.

For Americans, subject to strong beliefs and tendencies to see issues framed in black and white, restraint is difficult. Yet, patient wearing away is better by far than violence. Such patient action in the past has led to eventual major changes.

Humor, a Good Time, and the Christian Faith

Jesus apparently liked a good joke. He certainly showed humor in the ways he sometimes talked about the, perhaps, overly serious religious folks of his day.

He talked of people so concerned about the sin of their brother that they are unconcerned about their own sin. (“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” (Matthew 7: 3, RSV) Someone walking along with a log sticking out of their eye becomes concerned about a speck in their brother’s eye.

Jesus apparently liked having a good time socially, too. He often was invited to banquets and feasts and seemed to enjoy them, sometimes taking opportunity to teach while attending them.

He also taught us to despise the rich man who refused to share his food with the poor man next to his table, while we are to welcome back the sinner who repents, inviting him in for feasting and rejoicing.

I grew up in a teetotaling Southern Baptist church, but we shared numerous picnics and dinners together. The Christians I knew liked laughing and jokes. My father never drank a glass of alcohol in his life, but he often attracted neighborhood friends by inviting them into our house for sharing jokes and fellowship on a cold winter evening. As a child, I sat next to my mother’s chair and enjoyed all the conversation and laughter.

In summer, we pulled up yard chairs on our porch and enjoyed the long summer evenings together.

I believe Jesus would have us share the Christian faith by having a good time with our friends and neighbors, whom we care for as Jesus did the people around him.

Two Flags and a Bible

In my childhood summers, we enjoyed swimming and playing games and freedom from the routines of school. In my particular church, “vacation Bible school” was also one of the summer’s activities. The sessions included Bible stories but also fictional stories to illustrate themes and morals. We had crafts and games, as well as refreshment time, always a favorite. Basically, my memories of those times were pleasant.

The beginning activity was gathering and marching into the auditorium behind two flags (Christian and American) and a Bible. We pledged allegiance to all three. It was a time of Cold War animosities, of Europe threatened with communist takeover. We knew the Soviets as enemies of Christianity. Easy to place America as right up there with church and Bible. After all, persecution of the church was real in some Soviet aligned countries.

As I’ve grown older, I’ve become more careful about where I place my country. That country has always been important to my family; many close relatives served in the armed forces, including my brother. Yet, my country, much as I love it, is not Christianity.

I think Christians have always been called to be good citizens of the countries in which they live, as was the early missionary, Paul, calling on his Roman citizenship to alleviate persecution.

However, serving country is not the same as serving God. America is not God. The temptation to worship other than God is a constant danger for Christians. America, however, is not a “Christian” nation. We revere our founding fathers and mothers, but some of them owned slaves. Some treated their workers poorly. Yet, one of the blessings of America is that we can change when confronted with wrong ways of doing things. That begins with loving and serving our country, but not to blindly worshiping it. No nation is completely “Christian.”

If Generals Were Appointed Like Ambassadors

About a third of U.S. ambassadors generally are political appointees. They haven’t come up through the ranks of diplomats with career experience serving the U.S. in foreign countries.

Some political appointees are well-suited to their jobs—having worked in international jobs or in other positions giving them experience in international relations.

Many, however, are appointed because they gave money to the political party in power. These appointments are a remnant of the old spoils system of political largesse. The appointees may know little about the culture of the countries where they will serve, but view their appointment as a kind of paid excursion for a foreign holiday.

What if generals were appointed based on how much money they spent on a presidential campaign? What if, say, a general in charge of U.S. forces in Europe was appointed because of leading in campaign contributions in Illinois for the president? Suppose the general in charge of U.S. forces in the Pacific was appointed because of contributing the most money to a candidate in a Florida race?

We expect our military leaders to be experienced in military matters. We should also expect our international representatives to be experienced in international relations.

 

Stubborn Religion

Trends and movements come and go. Within nations and kingdoms as within literature and child rearing, various leaders and thinkers shape different eras.

Yet, religious institutions remain. They wax and wane, seem to disappear for while but then return, more influential than ever.

The Renaissance swept away medieval life, making irrelevant for Europeans much of the daily concern with religion. Yet it was followed by the Reformation, imperfect and harmful in some of its birth pangs, yet refocusing ordinary people on the spiritual journey.

Then the enlightenment flourished, opening up inquiry and scientific exploration. It broke up much of the average person’s literal interpretation of Christian scriptures. It was followed, however, by Christian renewal, in which the Christian message was carried to every non-European corner of the earth.

World wide bloodletting, begun by so-called Christian nations, led to a turning away from organized religion. Now it seems moribund in many developed nations, but it flames anew in non-European settings.

Sojourners published several “Letters to the American church from Christians around the World.” (August 2019) Wrote Ismael Moreno, a Jesuit social activist in Honduras:

“We have faith that we will begin to see small lights shining all over the United States. They will be lights lit from the margins to confront the powerful, and they will illuminate the community that believes and hopes. Not the lights of shopping centers or merchants, but the lights of communities that embrace one another in tenderness.”

Christian Nationalism?

“To be a Christian (aka a Christ follower) means following a leader who never led an army, who never used a weapon, who opened the table to outsiders, and who told us to welcome the stranger (as a way of welcoming Jesus).” (Carlos A. Rodriguez, “It’s Time to Choose,” Sojo.net, Sept/Oct 2024.)

I grew up during the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union threatened to take over Europe. At the time, it was easy to identify Christ with those countries allied against Stalin and other Soviet leaders. I read of children my age in Berlin who waited for American and allied nations to drop supplies and overcome the Soviet blockade of parts of Berlin. They  depended on the airlifts to survive.

With these examples, we easily identified the Soviets with enemies of Christ. Surely Jesus would not want little children to starve.

However, any human grouping, even a Christian one, is subject to the temptation of worshiping the group instead of Christ. Those early Christians, persecuted and often despised, persevered by loving even their enemies. Yet, as their bravery and kindness won that battle, some later fell victim to the temptation to serve earthly kingdoms instead of Christ.

The temptation is with us today, when we make the United States our focus instead of Christ. As Christians, we are surely required take advantage of our citizenship. However, if we identify country with God, we commit a form of idolatry.

Rather, we perform better citizenship if we join to create a government that takes care of widows and orphans and strangers. Just as many of our ancestors came to this country to seek a better way of life, we also will seek just, open, and orderly ways to help those today who wish to come to this country. In the long run, they will bless us. We should know, having been blessed ourselves by our immigrant ancestors.

Print versus Digital

A long time ago, my home town of Nashville, Tennessee, had two print newspapers. The editorial boards were usually on opposite sides of issues—local, national, international. One paper generally favored the Democrats while the other cheered for the Republicans.

Today, Nashvillians are fortunate to still have one print newspaper, though you can read it digitally as well. Of course, a great many people don’t read any newspaper. Their news comes from the internet.

That practice gives freedom to anyone to express political and other opinions. No editorial board or owners oversee what goes into public space.

Of course, one is free to lie, if they wish. “Fact checkers” can’t possibly keep up with all of us spouting opinions, as, indeed, I am doing here.

Giving anyone with a computer access to public space is both freeing and dangerous. All sides of any issue can be debated. Unknowns as well as the powerful can join in.

Newspapers printing lies can be sued and, if found guilty of falsehood, may be required to compensate the one they maligned. While one can still sue someone who spreads falsehoods about them on the internet, individuals tend to lack resources to do so.

Centuries ago, the invention of moveable type gave rise to an explosion of new ideas and eventually to more political freedom for ordinary individuals. Unfortunately, the journey to this freedom included wars and terrible suffering for some.

Today’s internet may be yesterday’s moveable type. Let us hope we respect its power and learn to use it wisely. In fact, returning to that print newspaper (via internet or delivered to our homes as a paper copy) for our first look at the news may be wise: it takes more time but tends to call for deeper reflection.

Digital versus Personal

The Covid virus hit about the same time new computer technology increased our ability to connect digitally to other people from our homes. Ever since then, society has struggled to return to personal communities, including back into our offices but also into our religious and social groups.

Our family structures have been challenged for decades. The computer revolution further challenged other personal interaction. It’s tempting to burrow down further and further into our personal nests.

What are we called to do to grow community? Perhaps the old adage about simply showing up applies. Start attending religious and community meetings again. Go play pickle ball or restart that book group. Knitting? Crossword puzzle groups? Support groups for those attempting to overcome addictions?

Pick your own, but come out of the burrows and into community again.

When Your Political Candidate Loses

Democracy is, as Winston Churchill reportedly said, the worst form of government except for any other.

Those burdened by living in a dictatorship or in a country ruled by a few elites may envy those able to vote relatively freely for their leaders in countries known as democracies. However, as we found out on January 2021, that quaint burden left to the United States by the early patriots and known as the electoral college has risen to haunt us.

The United States is known as one of the youngest countries in the world but one of the oldest democracies. We hear it so often that we need reminding that we don’t really have a pure democracy. In our presidential elections. we vote for electors who are, according to our constitution, supposed to meet in early January following the popular election to cast the ballots that actually elect the president.

It seems that the country’s early founders didn’t actually believe in ALL the people electing their leaders. Instead, they developed a system in which a small group of supposedly wise men (at the time only white men and more often the wealthier ones) would gather in early January and elect the president.

For most of our history, the electoral college became merely a group of unknowns who simply rubber stamped the November popular election.

Alas, we paid for the lack of clarification when Donald Trump’s followers attempted to use that little known practice to take over the government on the day the electors were supposed to meet, when they would overcome any opposition in order to declare Trump as the elected president.

The electoral college still remains, of course. The U.S. Constitution could be changed to reflect our more democratic ideas, but changing the Constitution is a massive undertaking.

At least we know now that we must safeguard our elections from any kind of mob influence, as well as guard the vote counting from outside manipulators.

We can give thanks that those who wished to overturn the 2020 election were defeated. We are rightfully warned, however, to safeguard the voting process in our coming elections.

My Tourism Experiences in Saudi Arabia

The New York Times, Wed, June 5, 2024: “Surprising, Unsettling, Surreal: Roaming Through Saudi Arabia,” by Stephen Hiltner.

In this article for The New York Times, Hiltner recounted his recent travel in Saudi Arabia, alone and without a driver. His journey appeared fascinating, beginning with the historic district in Jeddah. One of the first sites after Jeddah was the UNESCO World Heritage site in Hegra, with its rock-built structures.

Another stop was the Sharaan Nature Reserve, where the author slipped though a narrow canyon into a vast open plain surrounded by cliffs.

The author’s journey reminded me of my own tourist activities when I worked for the State Department in the U.S. Consulate at Jeddah. The atmosphere surrounding us then was quite different from Hiltner’s.

I remember eating in a Jeddah restaurant with fellow women friends, safely away in the “family” section. Afterward, we took refuge in a rug shop to await the end of prayer call, which was strictly observed.

Tourism, then, was not encouraged as it appears to be today. On one day’s outing, exploring the countryside with a group of friends, we of course steered clear of the forbidden city of Mecca, stopping to have our photos taken by the sign forbidding all travelers except Muslims into that city, before we traveled elsewhere.

We stopped and rested close to a spot where some boys were playing games. They closely examined us as we picnicked. No restaurants in the rural areas, of course, at least not open to women. We never saw any girls playing outside, either.

For rest that night we returned to our own homes on the consulate compound in Jeddah.

I recall another trip during that time, this one with my future husband for a jaunt out of town to hike along some dry creek beds. We left the car to hike and returned to find that someone had stolen the lug nuts off our tires. What to do? Wait for friends to note our absence and send out a search party? That was the one time I had neglected to follow the usual practice of letting friends know were we were going. If we didn’t return, no one would know where to send out that search party.

Fortunately, several Aussie families appeared on their own trip and went for help, taking Ben to find the necessary lug nuts in a gas station in a nearby town.

Today, any trip we took to Saudi Arabia would probably be with a tourist group. I’ve become a bit more cautious with experience.

How to End Wars

One way to rid the world of war might be to increase democracy, according to an article by Michael Doyle (“Why They Don’t Fight; the Surprising Endurance of the Democratic Peace,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2024).

Academics and politicians have become interested in “democratic peace theory,” the article states. Are democracies less likely to go to war? Of course, the United States, a democracy, certainly has attacked other nations in its almost 250 year history. So have major democracies in Europe.

However, according to the article, the difference is the general absence of war between democracies.

After all, states ruled by one individual or a few strong individuals do not have to ask their citizens to vote on going to war or much of anything else, as their citizens generally don’t vote, at least in free and fair elections.

The article not only delves into the current differences between strong democracies and more autocratic states but also between states with different degrees of democracy.

At any rate, the evidence of support for peace by citizens of democracies seems intuitive. A democratic form of government, by definition, gives the people the power of going to war or not. Why would I or any other citizen want war? The exception, of course, is after an obvious attack by a hostile power. Even then, our response should be proportionate, targeted at the perpetrators only, a matter of self-protection.

Mandatory Christianity

When I began my education in a typical public school of the time, at least for the southern U.S., Bible reading was often a part of the school day’s beginning. I can’t say I remember much about those readings or whatever comments the reader, usually the teacher, might have made.

My family was actively engaged in a local church. The church became a major part of both my religious and social life as I grew. My Christian faith developed within my family and that local church. Evangelism in the community was carried out by individuals reaching out to friends and neighbors, as were welfare activities as well, such as food pantries open to all.

Personally, I’ve concluded that making the Bible a mandatory part of the school curriculum would result in a watered-down kind of religion, not at all helpful in spreading the good news of Jesus.

I remember several years in Muslim majority countries, where Islam was a part of national life. In some cases, no other religion was allowed. Religious observance appeared to me to be a rote exercise, without much personal meaning.

Those experiences turned me off from supporting any kind of state religion. The U.S. Constitution’s prohibition of a state-sponsored church is, in my opinion, one of its wisest sections. I think it’s also one reason Christianity, being chosen voluntarily, has seen seasons of great growth throughout the centuries.

I believe Christians should have the right to worship in any country. I also believe in freedom of worship for all recognized religions in the United States. That means also that no religion is officially favored.

If you want to ensure that Christianity or any religion loses its vibrancy, make it a state religion.